On the pragmatics of social theory. The case of Elias's "On the Process of Civilization"

This paper proposes a new approach to the study of sociological classics. This approach is pragmatic in character. It draws upon the social pragmatism of G.H. Mead and the sociology of texts of D.F. McKenzie. Our object of study is Norbert Elias’s On the Process of Civilization. The pragmatic genealogy of this book reveals the importance of taking materiality seriously. By documenting the successive entanglements between human agency and non-human factors, we discuss the origins of the book in the 1930s, how it was forgotten for thirty years, and how in the mid-1970s it became a sociological classic. We explain canonization as a matter of fusion between book’s material form and its content, in the context of the paperback revolution of the 1960s, the events of May 1968, and the demise of Parsons’ structural functionalism, and how this provided Elias with an opportunity to advance his model of sociology.

Human creation, imagination and autonomy: a brief introduction to Castoriadis’ social and psychoanalytical philosophy

During the last decade Castoriadis’ questioning has become a reference point in contemporary social theory. In this article I examine some of the key notions in Castoriadis’ work and explore how he strives to develop a theory on the irreducible creativity in the radical imagination of the individual and in the institution of the social-historical sphere. Firstly, I briefly discuss his conception of modern capitalism as bureaucratic capitalism, a view initiated by his criticism of the USSR regime. The following break up with Marxist theory and his psychoanalytic interests empowered him to criticize Lacan and read Freud in an imaginative, though unorthodox, fashion. I argue that this critical enterprise assisted greatly Castoriadis in his conception of the radical imaginary and in his unveiling of the political aspects of psychoanalysis. On the issue of the radical imaginary and its methodological repercussions, I’m focusing mainly on the radical imagination of the subject and its importance in the transition from the ‘‘psychic’’ to the ‘‘subject’’. Taking up the notion of “Being” as a starting point, I examine the notion of autonomy, seeking its roots in the ancient Greek world. By looking at notions such as “praxis”, “doing”, “project” and “elucidation”, I show how Castoriadis sought to redefine revolution as a means for social and individual autonomy. Finally I attempt to clarify the meaning of “democracy” and “democratic society” in the context of the social imaginary and its creations, the social imaginary significations.

G.H. Mead

G.H. Mead (1863-1931) oriented much of his intellectual efforts around three unavoidable questions for anyone living in a modern society: how are selfhood, knowledge, and politics understood and organized in such a society? Modern individuals continually seek answers to questions although nobody has ever come up with a definitive answer to them. Modernity, in other words, confronts us with inevitable problematics that fundamentally shape the way in which we think about certain topics. For the purposes of my discussion of Mead, I focus upon three of these modern problematics: science, selfhood, and democratic politics. But before I discuss Mead’s treatment of these problem areas, allow me to briefly situate Mead as a pragmatist in relation to Dewey and James within pragmatism.

Who reads Tocqueville today?

Esta comunicação irá ser publicada no próximo número da Newsletter do RC16 Sociological Theory da International Sociological Association, em Dezembro de 2016.